2 perf & Filters

[Seamus Tierney]

Hello all, had a few questions that I wanted to ask the community.

I am about to start my next film and I am planning on shooting it on film. 
I am thinking 2 perf, 2:39. 
still sourcing the cameras but it’s looking like Arricam ST/LT and Kodak stock.

Question: Is there a difference in grain structure between 3perf and 2perf if I am shooting for 2:39. By all reasoning there should be no change in grain from 3 to 2 perf seeing as I am using the same amount of the negative when shooting 2:39.

Second Question: 85 or no 85? It seems to me that I will still need to use an 85 filter when shooting tungsten balanced film in a daylight scenario. I know that some might say if you are finishing in a digital realm you can correct it in the color grading. But my gut is saying that the fundamental make of tungsten balanced film will be effected in a way that will be hard to correct even with the powerful color correction tools we have these days. 
 

Any and all advice is welcomed.

thanks much

Séamus

[David Mullen ASC]

2.39 on 3-perf is slightly larger than it is on 2-perf.  This is because both expose Full Aperture width, but 2-perf 35mm Full Aperture is 2.66 : 1, so you end up cropping the sides a little to get to 2.39.

If you don't shoot with an 85 filter in daylight on tungsten film, you are overexposing the blue record compared to the red and green, more compared to the red. It can be corrected for in post. But if you are shooting warm landscapes like deserts or saturated things like red roses, you probably want a balanced negative. But if you plan on leaving the image with a cool cast, like for winter scenes or blue twilight, or you just like a little coldness in the shadows, then it's less critical to have a neutral negative.

[Seamus Tierney]

Awesome thanks David, most helpful. 
 

S

[Robin Phillips]

2 perf 2.40:1 uses less surface area than 3 perf 2.40:1. The grain will be more present. Remember that 2 perf does not have a native aspect ratio of 2.40:1, its much wider. there is an old panavision explainer pdf that I have, but its too large to post here and annoyingly Im not seeing it elsewhere online. but from that doc:  

3 Perf 2.40

0.945 x 0.394 in. 24.00 x 10.04 mm [same area as 4 perf 2.40]

2 Perf 2.40

0.825 x 0.345 in. 20.96 x 8.76 mm

3P 2.40 is 1.3x larger than 2P 2.40

[Tyler Purcell]

As others have pointed out, 3 perf is the way to go.

2 perf cameras can be tricker to get ahold of and they can also be more to rent in the long run. 

3 perf is more ubiquitous and you will get a lager image for sure. The graph above does not really do it justice, the difference is pretty large between 2 perf and 3 perf at 2.40:1 because 2 perf is still cropped to get that aspect ratio. Plus with 3 perf, you can re-frame in post if there are any issues during the shoot. Can't do that with 2 perf, you've got hard mattes and if ya get a hair in the gate or anything like that, you're screwed. 

[Seamus Tierney]

Ok, sold, 3 perf it is. Thanks for the great info. It’s been awhile since I have shot film and I had never shot anything but 4 pref. And now I can shoot Panavision, they were having trouble finding 2 perf cameras with HD taps. Not exactly a deal breaker but a plus for sure.

 

[Jon O'Brien]

The advantage of 2-perf, if you can get hold of a camera, is that it's cheaper to run and has slightly more obvious grain than 3-perf. I'd rather shoot with 2-perf, myself. I like to see a hint of grain in the image. The larger frame area of 3-perf can be close in look these days to the pristine look of digital footage. But maybe that's what you want.

[Seamus Tierney]

15 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

The advantage of 2-perf, if you can get hold of a camera, is that it's cheaper to run and has slightly more obvious grain than 3-perf. I'd rather shoot with 2-perf, myself. I like to see a hint of grain in the image. The larger frame area of 3-perf can be close in look these days to the pristine look of digital footage. But maybe that's what you want.

I think that I really need to test both and see the results side by side.

[Dom Jaeger]

9 hours ago, Robin Phillips said:

2 perf 2.40:1 uses less surface area than 3 perf 2.40:1. The grain will be more present. Remember that 2 perf does not have a native aspect ratio of 2.40:1, its much wider. there is an old panavision explainer pdf that I have, but its too large to post here and annoyingly Im not seeing it elsewhere online. but from that doc:  

3 Perf 2.40

0.945 x 0.394 in. 24.00 x 10.04 mm [same area as 4 perf 2.40]

2 Perf 2.40

0.825 x 0.345 in. 20.96 x 8.76 mm

3P 2.40 is 1.3x larger than 2P 2.40

Those 2 perf dimensions are smaller than most 2 perf cameras.

The Techniscope full aperture was 22.6 x 9.47 mm, modern 2 perf cameras can go wider, but the height is still the limiting factor. The 2 perf 2.39:1 ground glass frame on cameras like the Aaton Penelope or Arricams is 22.35 x 9.35 mm.

3 perf 2.39 is only 1.15x larger in area than that.

Even if you extract the full S35 gate width of 24.9mm from 3 perf (24.9 x 10.4 mm for 2.39), ignoring the ground glass framelines, it's still only 1.2x the area of the Techniscope gate. 

There are definitely advantages to shooting 3 perf 2.39, but the increase in area is not enormous. To put it another way, compared to 3 perf, 2 perf uses 33% less film to deliver an image 13 - 17% smaller in area.